Τάχα οὐδὲ ἀποκρίνασθαι προσήκει τοῖς ματαίοις τῶν λόγων: τὸ γὰρ σοφὸν τοῦ Σολομῶντος παράγγελμα πρὸς τοῦτο ἔοικε φέρειν τὸ διακελευόμενον μὴ ἀποκρίνεσ

 Τί οὖν ἐστιν ὃ προφέρουσιν ἡμῖν ἀσεβεῖν αἰτιῶνται τοὺς περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος μεγαλοπρεπεῖς ἔχοντας ὑπολήψεις: καὶ ὅσα τοῖς τῶν πατέρων ἑπόμενοι δό

 Τί οὖν ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος οὐδὲν καινὸν ἡμεῖς οὐδὲ παρ' ἡμῶν αὐτῶν τοῖς τὰ τοιαῦτα προκαλουμένοις ἀποκρινούμεθα, ἀλλὰ ἀποχρησόμεθα τῇ τῆς θείας γραφῆς π

 Καθάπερ καὶ διὰ τῶν σωματικῶν ὑποδειγμάτων ἔστι τὸν λόγον πιστώσασθαι. ἡ γὰρ τοῦ πυρὸς φύσις ἐπίσης πᾶσι τοῖς συμπληροῦσιν αὐτὴν μορίοις τὴν θερμαντικ

 Εἰ οὖν ἀληθῶς καὶ οὐ μέχρις ὀνόματος θεῖον τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν προσηγόρευται, τίς ἔτι λόγος ἐστὶ τοῖς ἀντιστατο

 Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐκεῖνο αὔταρκες εἰς ἀπολογίαν αὐτοῖς, ὅτι ἐπειδὴ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν τρίτον ὑπὸ κυρίου τοῖς μαθηταῖς παραδέδοται, διὰ τοῦτο τῆς θεοπρεποῦς ἐννοίας

 Ἐπεὶ οὖν εἴρηται τῆς θείας φύσεως εἶναι τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ καλῶς εἴρηται, πᾶσα δὲ μεγαλοπρεπὴς ἔννοια τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ καθὼς εἴρηται συνεμφαίνεται, ὁ ἐκεῖν

 εἰ δὲ φρικτὸν τοῦτο καὶ πάσης ἀτοπίας καὶ βλασφημίας ἐπέκεινα, πρόδηλον ὅτι τοῖς εὐσημοτέροις ὀνόμασί τε καὶ νοήμασι περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος οἱ εὐσεβ

 Εἰ δὴ τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν, ἐφεξῆς ὁ λόγος καὶ περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ ἴσον διασκεψάσθω καὶ περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὡσαύτως. ἆρ' οὐχὶ τὸ τέλειον ὁμολογεῖ τῆς τιμῆς καὶ ἐπὶ

 Εἰ οὖν διὰ πάντων τέλειον τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον εἶναι συντίθενται, ὡμολόγηται δὲ πρὸς τούτοις εὐσεβὲς εἶναι καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ ἐν παντὶ ἀγαθῷ

 Τίνι τοίνυν τρόπῳ τιμήσεις τὸ θεῖον πῶς ὑψώσεις τὸ ὓψιστον πῶς δοξάσεις τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν δόξαν πῶς ἐπαινέσεις τὸ ἀκατάληπτον εἰ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ὡς σταγ

 Οἱ οὐρανοὶ διηγοῦνται τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ μικροὶ κήρυκες τῆς ἀξίας νομίζονται: Ὅτι ἐπῄρθη ἡ μεγαλοπρέπεια αὐτοῦ, οὐ μέχρι τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἀλλ' ὑπεράνω

 Τί οὖν βούλεται ἡ ὑποστολὴ τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ ἡ μεγαλοψυχία [τῶν] ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ πατρὸς φιλοτιμουμένων, καὶ τῷ υἱῷ τυχεῖν τὰ ἴσα χαριζομένων, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ πνεύμ

 ναί φησιν. ἀλλὰ τὸν πατέρα μὲν δημιουργὸν εἶναι παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἐδιδάχθημεν: ὡσαύτως καὶ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τὰ πάντα γεγεννῆσθαι ἐμάθομεν: οὐδὲν δὲ τοιοῦτον

 τί οὖν ἡμεῖς πρὸς τοῦτο ἀποκρινούμεθα ὅτι μάταια ἐλάλησαν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν οἱ νομίζοντες μὴ ἀεὶ μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ πνεῦμα εἶναι, ἀ

 ἡ γὰρ εὐσεβὴς διάνοια τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον: οὔτε πατὴρ χωρὶς υἱοῦ ποτε ἐννοεῖται οὔτε υἱὸς δίχα τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος καταλαμβάνεται. ὡς γὰρ ἀμήχανόν

 Εἰ δὲ τούτῳ μέν ἐστιν ἡ πρὸς τὸ ἐνεργεῖν ὁρμή, ὑπερκειμένη δέ τις ἐξουσία κωλύει τὴν πρόθεσιν, εἰπάτωσαν τὴν αἰτίαν τοῦ ταῦτα κωλύοντος. φθόνῳ τῆς ἐκ

 Ταῦτα ἡμεῖς ἰδιωτικῶς καὶ κατὰ τὸν συνήθη τρόπον ἡμῖν ἐννοοῦντες τὰ σοφὰ ταῦτα τῶν ἀνθυποφερόντων οὐ προσιέμεθα πιστεύοντες καὶ ὁμολογοῦντες ἐν παντὶ

 περὶ δὲ λατρείας καὶ προσκυνήσεως καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα μικρολογοῦντες προφέρουσιν οἱ σοφοὶ παρ' ἑαυτοῖς, ἐκεῖνα λέγομεν, ὅτι πάντων τῶν παρ' ἡμῖν γινομένων

 Εἰ δέ τις ἀθετοίη τὴν φωνὴν ταύτην καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν τὴν τῷ ὀνόματι τῆς θειότητος συνεμφαινομένην, λέγοι δὲ τὸ παρὰ τῶν πολλῶν ἐπὶ καθαιρέσεως τῆς τοῦ

 Εἰπάτωσαν οὖν ἡμῖν οἱ καθαιροῦντες τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος δόξαν καὶ τῇ ὑποχειρίῳ φύσει συγκατατάσσοντες, τίνος σύμβολόν ἐστιν ἡ χρῖσις. οὐχὶ τῆς βασιλείας

 Ἔπειτα καὶ τοῦτο σκοπήσωμεν: ἡ βασιλεία ἐν τῇ τῶν ὑποχειρίων ἀρχῇ πάντως γνωρίζεται. τί οὖν τῆς βασιλευούσης φύσεώς ἐστι τὸ ὑπήκοον τοὺς αἰῶνας πάντω

 Καὶ γὰρ κἀκεῖνο ὅσην ἔχει τὴν ἀτοπίαν σκοπήσωμεν. πάντων τῶν ἐν τῇ κτίσει νοουμένων κατ' αὐτὸ τοῦτο, τὸ διὰ κτίσεως ἐσχηκέναι τὸ εἶναι, τὴν ὁμοτιμίαν

 Ἔπειτα καὶ τοῦτο σκοπήσωμεν. τῷ ἁγίῳ βαπτίσματι_ τί διὰ τούτου πραγματευόμεθα ἆρ' οὐχὶ τὸ ζωῆς μετέχειν οὐκέτι θανάτῳ ὑποκειμένης οὐδένα [ἂν] ἀντειπ

 Ὥστε εἰ μικρὸν ὑπολαμβάνουσι τὸ δῶρον οἱ καὶ τῆς ζωῆς ἑαυτῶν ὑβρισταὶ καὶ πολέμιοι καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὸ παρεκτικὸν τῆς χάριτος ταύτης ἀτιμάζειν ἐγνώκασι,

 Εἰ οὖν πᾶν ὕψωμα δυνάμεως ἀνθρωπίνης κάτω τῆς μεγαλοπρεπείας τοῦ προσκυνουμένου ἐστί (τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ λόγος διὰ τοῦ ὑποποδίου τῶν ποδῶν ὑπαινίσσεται), τίς

 Τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον πρῶτον μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ἁγίων ἐκεῖνό ἐστιν ὅπερ ὁ πατήρ, κατὰ φύσιν ἅγιος, καὶ ὁ μονογενὴς ὡσαύτως. οὕτω καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ

 Εἰ οὖν τοσαύτη τοῦ πνεύματος ἡ μεγαλωσύνη καὶ εἴ τι καλὸν καὶ εἴ τι ἀγαθὸν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἐν τῷ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν ἐνεργοῦντι πνεύματι τ

 Ἀλλ' ἐρεῖς ὅτι πατέρα ἐννοῶν καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τῇ προσηγορίᾳ συμπεριέλαβον. τὸν δὲ υἱόν, εἰπέ μοι, τῇ διανοίᾳ λαβὼν ἆρ' οὐ συμπαρεδέξω καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγι

 ἆρ' οὖν τοῦτο νοοῦσι καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν προσκύνησιν καὶ πῶς οὐ καταγέλαστον τὸ μήτε τούτου οἴεσθαι δεῖν ἀξιοῦν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, οὗ καὶ τοὺς Χαναναίους

 Ἔπειτα κἀκεῖνο παρ' αὐτῶν ἔστι μαθεῖν: ὅταν, ὡς οἴονται, τῷ πατρὶ προσκυνῶσιν, ἆρα καθόλου τῆς διανοίας ἑαυτῶν τοῦ τε μονογενοῦς καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος τὴν

On the Holy Spirit. Against the Followers of Macedonius. 1    Macedonius had been a very eminent Semi-Arian doctor. He was deposed from the See of Constantinople, A.D. 360: and it was actually the influence of the Eunomians that brought this about. He went into exile and formed his sect. He considered the Holy Spirit as “a divine energy diffused throughout the universe: and not a person distinct from the Father and the Son” (Socrates, H. E. iv. 4). This opinion had many partizans in the Asiatic provinces, “but,” says Mosheim, “the Council of Constantinople crushed it.” However, that the final clauses of the Nicene Creed which express distinctly, amongst other truths, the deity and personality of the Third Person of the Trinity were added at that Council to the original form, is extremely doubtful. For—1. We find the expanded form which we now use in the Nicene Creed, in a work written by Epiphanius seven years before the Council of Constantinople. So that at all events the enlarged Creed was not prepared by the Fathers then assembled. 2. It is extremely doubtful if any symbol at all was set forth at Constantinople. Neither Socrates, nor Sozomen, nor Theodoret makes mention of one: but all speak of adherence to the evangelic faith ratified at Nicæa. It is significant too that the expanded form was entirely ignored by the Council of Ephesus, 431. But at the Council of Chalcedon, 451, it was brought forward: though even then it appears that it was far from attaining general acceptance. By 540 it had become the accepted form (according to a letter of Pope Vigilius). “It seems most likely therefore that it was a profession received amongst the churches in the patriarchate of Constantinople, but at first not more widely circulated” (J. R. Lumby, Commentary on Prayer-Book, S. P. C. K., p. 66) F. J. A. Hort, however, (see Two Dissertations by) regards this “Constantinopolitan” Creed as the old Creed of Jerusalem enlarged and expanded; and he suggests that S. Cyril of Jerusalem may have produced it before the Council, which gave it some sort of approval. The addition, moreover, of the later clauses was not, as Mosheim seems to imagine, the only difference between the Nicene Creed and this Creed.   That this lateness of accepted definition on a vital point should not excite our wonder, Neander shows “the apprehension of the idea (of the ὁμοούσιον of the Holy Spirit) had been so little permeated as yet by the Christian consciousness of the unity of God, that Gregory of Nazianzum could still say in 380, ‘Some of our theologians consider the Holy Spirit to be a certain mode of the Divine energy, others a creature of God, others God Himself. Others say they do not know which opinion they ought to accept, out of reverence for the Scriptures which have not clearly explained this point.’ Hilary of Poictiers says in his own original way that ‘he was well aware that nothing could be foreign to God’s nature, which searches into the deep things of that nature. Should one be displeased at being told that He exists by and through Him, by and from Whom are all things, that He is the Spirit of God, but also God’s gift to believers, then will the apostles and prophets displease him; for they affirm only that He exists.’” There can be little doubt, however, that Gregory, in the following fragment, is defending a statement already in existence. He seems even to follow the order of the words, “Lord and giver of Life.” “Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified.” Doubtless the next clause, “Who spake by the Prophets,” was dealt with in what is lost. But, essentially a creed-maker as he was, his claim to have himself added these final clauses cannot be substantiated. For the mss. of this treatise, see p. 31.

[ΓΡΗΓΟΡΙΟΥ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΥ ΝΥΣΣΗΣ] ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑΝΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΜΑΧΩΝ